HH:
These days, museums are increasing their presence worldwide.
Is it a good thing, do you think? Is it the
same problem for a museum like yours, where
most of the works are not of French origin?

JFJ: You are perfectly right, our problem is totally
different. The Louvre, or the Orsay Museum, or the Jeu de Paume, are in
very heavy demand in the world, because they are vectors of European
culture. Countries that today are very prosperous had, historically, no
opportunity or desire to collect European art. These Arab countries among
others today remind me of Europe and the United States in the 19th Century
who launched universal expositions and created museums for universal
themes, like Islamic art, Asian art, and Near Eastern archeology.

I know a controversy is currently raging about these projects. I think
that the Louvre of Abu Dhabi, to name but one, was a decision of our
minister and the President of the Louvre, Henri Loyrette. I think they
know what they are doing, and I will not criticize my fellow museum
directors, and they do not criticize me.

I can say this: it is a good thing for other countries to feel the need
to have universal museums. We at Guimet have associated ourselves with a
Taiwanese project. In Taiwan we were consulted on how to create
institutions that would transcend Chinese art by reaching out to
neighboring art, from Southeast Asia, and I hope one day Western art as
well. Of course, in those countries universal art is primarily
contemporary art, beause it is easier to purchase contemporary art than a
Madonna by Raphael or a half-dozen Caravaggios.

HH: So do you foresee a Taipei Guimet?

JFJ: In our case, Taipei is not interested in our
Chinese collections as they have their own magnificent ones. Of course,
there was a French report on the subject, the "Jouyet report" [Rapport de
la Commission sur l’économie de l’immatériel 2006 - Report of the
Commission on the Immaterial Economy], to explain how many works sleep in
storage and that few are exposed. Quantitatively it is true, but
qualitatively it is totally incorrect. In other words, at Guimet we have
no masterpieces in storage, except for a few paintings and prints
(estampes), things we expose by rotation. We can only expose fragile works
a few weeks per year, and so we need to have several hundred of them. And
of course in a museum you sometimes have a room filled with 10,000
silexes, no one will ever want to borrow them from you, except perhaps for
an archeology exhibition and they'd take a dozen at most.

HH: Have we entered into an era of museums competing
to spread their storage rooms beyond national borders? Is this going to
give ideas to the Met, the British?

JFJ: All the better if it does, cultural competition
is not a bad thing. When I was appointed 20 years ago to head the museum,
the politicians were rejecting the word "museum" as completely passé, and
they would say "the word musée is totally has-been". Thereupon the Grand
Louvre operation came into being, and other big operations in France and
abroad. And now, 20 years later, the situation has come full swing: back
then French museums has 4 or 5 million visitors per year, now it's between
18 and 20 million. The regional museums have been renovated, and museums
have become a goal in themselves: the Louvre Abu Dhabi, the Guggenheim ...
newspapers are reporting these events ceasely.

It is too easy to say today that this evolution is market-driven,
commercial Museums used to be sleepy institutions. I think that this
newfound importance of museums is a good thing. Works of art only exist
through the eyes of the visitor. What matters, at least in France, is that
museums remain research centers, if only because our exhibitions require
the editing of catalogues, for which we use academics, outside scientists,
etc. The level in France is satisfactory, as it is in the United States
where the highest level curators are recruited. What one might have feared
has not happened: we did not end up with cultural mediators in lieu of
curators.

HH: Is there a danger of transforming artwork into commodities? That
loans would go to the highest bidder or that if an institution on the
outer reaches of the world would invite only the cheapest offers?

JFJ: All
cases exist. Let's not condemn out of hand. That a museum from a country
without means, with important collections threatened by water seapage,
should send their collections abroad in exchange for a subsidy, that does
not bother me. What would really bother me is a system of catalogue
rental. I think that using the collections to gather funds is acceptable
if it is correctly explained, as in Kabul where evey visitor gives one
euro for the creation of a new museum. I would be skeptical if such a
system were adopted for a rich museum. If you consider the collections of
the Orsay Museum, or the Jeu de Paume, the Japanese are willing to stand
in line for hours to see a Van Gogh, and the big media like NHK
or the Asahi Shimbun
are sponsoring the event, and they make
money from it, so the museum should be able to ask for a percentage. After
all expediting works is a heavy task.

The thing to prevent above all: the paying loan. For example, we
organized an exhibition on Khmer Treasures in Washington for the National
Gallery, but without a fee, not a centime did we earn because it was an
important event with a purpose: promoting knowledge of Cambodia after that
country's long torment. I am talking about a political purpose. But
conversely, were the Met to ask us to pay for some important work of
theirs we wished to exhibit, I would find this improper.

All this must be spelled out openly. What we must
oppose is the rental of the art work. These pieces were given to us by major
collectors, and we are the representatives of French tax payers, they do
not belong to us, therefore we should not turn them into objects of crude
negotiation.

HH: Web sites are becoming necessary complements of
museums, what are the functions of a site? Education? Practical
information? Games? What's the best site in your opinion?

JFJ: I
wouldn't know. Of course, a site has many functions. It is a practical
tool for our local public, a public of habitués, who need references and information on what is going
on. But it is also something else: we realize that millions of people will
never come to Paris, I'm thinking of the Chinese. They can see the virtual
artwork. What we have is a museum accessible worldwide. Everybody should
know what's in the Guimet Museum, and what is our history and structure.

Morever, we've added games, to attract young people, to elicit
impressions, and to encourage the children to influence their parents. The
games are never pure amusement, they have to show things and explain those
things. The puzzle is a good example. Of course, the Web also helps people
see what's in the museum: the idea is to look things up on our site, then
visit the museum. You do not really see when you stroll through a museum,
so by going on the website beforehand, you really see what you already
recognize. What you don't know you don't see, as in the 18th Century
nobody knew because nobody saw gothic art.

At the same time, the website is a great instrument for researchers,
because the collections are on-line. Take the Grandidier collection, for
example: it's very innovative and I hope we do the same to other
collections. Moreover, the site gives an outlet to those of us who make
museums live. The main thing is to have a web director and a team and
editorial committees, so the site doesn't get scattered.

HH: Your site cost you a mere 60,000 euros! How did
you do it?

JFJ: Because we are one of the least budget hungry
museums on the world. We put on a great many of our exhibitions with no
budget. The staff is very small and motivated. The fact that we are few
can be limiting at times, but we've noticed that when there are too many
people, much activity is wasted in overlapping efforts. Involuntarily, of
course.

And of course we're also very show-off, if we feel something wouldn't
be excellent we wouldn't do it. That's why when we saw the demo for this
new site, with the desired image definition, we committed ourselves. In 3
or 4 years we'll have to start all over again!

HH: Now that you have entire collections on-line, will
this have an impact on the black market? If every known object is on-line,
objects that aren't on-line are by elimination fishy. You're created a
instant worldwide catalogue.

JFJ: There's looting, with airplanes entirely packed
with objects. But I know the Pakistanis who say "it is the foreigners who
are looting us". Well, there isn't a foreign mission involved in this, and
on the other hand I could reveal the names of all the traffickers, say
Mister Bagha in Islamabad, with his contacts, etc, and there's not one
foreigner. Even though foreigners do purchase at the end of the process. A
good comparison is drugs: condemning the user is one thing, but that
doesn't mean the producers and traffickers who convey them are totally
innocent. That would be like saying "it is the consumer who is to blame".

The fact that things go on-line is a good thing for better
documentation, because there's a very sizeable market for counterfeit
works. And the availability on-line of works can help someone who's
sincerely interested in purchasing at an antique dealer's to look at the
works on-line in the museums. He can look at objects from the Gandhara,
compare what's at the Met, at the British, at the Guimet. He can train his
eye.

Harold Hyman is a Franco-American journalist, based in Paris, specializing
in foreign affairs and cultural diplomacy. He has worked for Radio
France Internationale, Courrier International, and Radio Classique (news
section), and now works for BFM TV.He last wrote onDays of Glory: Valor,
Racism and the Ingratitude of the French Republicfor
Culturekiosque.com
.